NEWSPAPER OPINIONS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13905, 2 December 1910, Page 8

NEWSPAPER OPINIONS.

(BPECIAL TO "THE PRESS.") AUCKLAND, December 1. The 'Herald" says:—"We regret that Sir Joseph Ward should have felt it necessary to reply to attacks which were considered beueath contempt by those, who are jealous of the honour of their leading public men, and who aro gratefully conscious" of .he obligations under which he has placed the people of New Zealand. The Opposition has warmly dissociated itself from any sympathy with these contemptible personalities, nor do we see how any aa* pirants to office could have anything out scorn and indignation for calumnies directed at the Prime Minister simply because he is Prime Minister. There are not so many capable men coming forward in politics that we can afford to reward those who do by discrediting their civic spirit; by libelling their characters, and "by besmirching their reputations. We "say emphatically that those who thus dishearten and discourage loyal and hardworking public men will ultimately destroy the State by corrupting and demoralising public life, unless the great mass of our citizens learn to treat as personal insults the slandering of statesmen by cowardly and scurrilous anonymnncules." WELLINGTON, December 1. The '-Post," m a leading article tonight, referring to yesterday's proceedings in Parliament, says:—"We regret that Sir Joseph Ward considered that he was impelled to offer a defence for which the preponderating healthy proportion of New Zealand's population had not called. The forcefulness of the speech was admirable but while giving him all credit for its quality, w. still contend that it was not necessary. We do not question Sir Josephs sincerity in his belief that Providence had intervened to ruin his enemies of 1896 one by one , tfli the

telly was fourteen, but such a statement in the course ot a debate »hen has run on party lines was ""P 1^ o*'0*' The Primo Minister also made *n°«* r mistake, he appeared to have a firm m.lief, based on flimsy evidence that the Opposition was associated with the dissemination of the disgusting pamphlet. Indignant denials were promptly recorded by Mr .Massey and his supporters, but their repudiation «as greeted with cheap cynicism and vulgar doubt by some members on tlio Government side. This stupid insistence on the Opposition s guilt is too grotesque for serious discussion by sane men."